I have a habit of picking just the relevant part of the quote to my reply, I see no reason to copy the whole long post if there is just a small point to make. It is more polite to the readers. I also do not understand replies which quote sometimes include a long string of photographs also, which take an awful lot of space and use up bandwidth.

I think the camera choice for any photography has to be one that will deliver the results the artist wants. And one which the artist is comfortable using in street situations. Leica's with a 35mm lens were used extensively by many of the best street photographers. But, no reason you can't use other cameras that work for you. I've used a Fuji 645, a Nikon FA, Mamiya 7, EOS 1V, and several others. No matter which I use, I try to have a lens that I can operate from inside the action zone. I want to be on the sidewalk, not 50 yards away. But others prefer the anonymous style of long lenses. To each his own vision.

Regardless of type of camera, you need to be able to operate it on instinct and very quickly. If you need to fumble with stuff like menus, or tiny buttons, you will have trouble getting dynamic shots. Time is measured in split seconds. Many people that used rangefinders would zone focus them for this reason.

I think long tele shots tend to look static and have too much compression. That's just my taste. I'm currently using the Fuji X Pro 1 for everything now, and that means street too. It's not the best I have used for street, but it is very workable. I do miss some shots with it because of focusing flubs, but not too many. It also has too many precious buttons that can be hit. On the plus side, the IQ is better than any camera I have ever owned.

For years I have shot political demonstrations - partly as a substitute for street - and because there are always a lot of police about then photographers can shoot away with little fear from members of the public.

Sadly, in today's political climate in America, you have as much to fear from the police as from the public. Just ask anyone who has spent time photographing any of the "occupy" demonstrations and had their camera(s) confiscated by the police, perhaps returned later, but almost always missing the card or finding it "accidentally" formatted.

Sounds like a ready-made lawsuit. Any time a cop even touches your camera he's committed a crime -- unless you were photographing in a restricted military installation or other nationally designated sensitive area.

...I also do not understand replies which...take an awful lot of space and use up bandwidth...

I suspect you may have been around since the early days of the internet. I well remember being severely flamed by senior members of my "PC User Group" for quoting more than the absolute minimum in anything I replied to on the discussion board. These days, who cares about bandwidth - or even knows what it is.

On the substantive topic, I am one of those who would need a new attitude rather than a new camera before getting into street photography as defined by RSL and other aficionados. I like the idea of snooping from a long telephoto distance but can understand that it wouldn't be the same. The barrier is psychological, or even maybe moral, rather than technical.

Walter, I am talking about my own inhibitions rather than making any kind of judgement about what other people do. In photographing someone from relatively close up, and where they see I am doing it, it feels to me as if I am making some kind of approach to them, or even claim on them (psychological inhibition) or even intruding on their privacy (moral inhibition). The test of the moral inhibition is whether it would survive if I were out of sight with a long lens. A test which it fails. I also remain somewhat scarred after being denounced as a pervert on a Sydney train for taking shots of fellow travelers with a cell phone.

Walter, I am talking about my own inhibitions rather than making any kind of judgement about what other people do. In photographing someone from relatively close up, and where they see I am doing it, it feels to me as if I am making some kind of approach to them, or even claim on them (psychological inhibition) or even intruding on their privacy (moral inhibition). The test of the moral inhibition is whether it would survive if I were out of sight with a long lens. A test which it fails. I also remain somewhat scarred after being denounced as a pervert on a Sydney train for taking shots of fellow travelers with a cell phone.

I think you have it about right.

I am often caught in other people's photographs because I live in a tourist resort and can hardly avoid it in summer; I used to find it difficult to go for a walk without stopping to allow some person to photograph his companion. I now no longer care, and simply go along my legal way. The funny thing is, they sometimes apologise to me for obstructing me. However, I find it annoying, especially if seated at a pavement café and know I'm in frame with someone else. Modesty stops me imagining I'm the main subject, but I could be mistaken. However, I always summon up a scowl smile. ;-)

Sounds like a ready-made lawsuit. Any time a cop even touches your camera he's committed a crime -- unless you were photographing in a restricted military installation or other nationally designated sensitive area.

The restricted military installation scenario is legally the only barrier in the UK apart from trying to stop people to insist on taking their image that no photographer - unless a press photographer - would do. The Amateur Photographer - UK - stated if people don't want their photo taken in the street then don't leave the house. In the UK I have been shooting political events for about 10 years and no policeman has approached me about using my camera except for two who wanted to know if a particular event was to happen. They thought I was press. Police in the UK wouldn't want you delete images because if you had taken some that were wrong then it would be evidence?

Civil tort of trespass to chattels (that's when I touch your personal property without your permission) or conversion (that's interfering with your possession of your personal property)? However, the analog tort to one's body rather than possessions would be battery (defined as an unpermitted offensive touching), but there are plenty of situations where a cop can touch you or shove you without committing a battery even though you have not been "detained." Likewise, there most likely are situations defined where a copy can interfere with your personal property, but I don't know what they are or how they are determined. Let the topic drift begin....

Civil tort of trespass to chattels (that's when I touch your personal property without your permission) or conversion (that's interfering with your possession of your personal property)? However, the analog tort to one's body rather than possessions would be battery (defined as an unpermitted offensive touching), but there are plenty of situations where a cop can touch you or shove you without committing a battery even though you have not been "detained." Likewise, there most likely are situations defined where a copy can interfere with your personal property, but I don't know what they are or how they are determined. Let the topic drift begin....

Torts aren't crimes and in any event "touching" the camera wouldn't come close to either trespass to a chattel or conversion.

You're right, Jeremy. I wrote in anger and in haste. Shouldn't have used the word "crime." It's at least a tort, but there are acts that would constitute a tort for a civilian that become a crime if a sworn officer commits them. A great deal depends on the situation, and I'm sure the so-called "occupy" events with their property damage, public urination, defecation, rape, etc., etc., were a pretty annoying and special situation for the cops.

In any case the question's going to make for an interesting discussion in the evening over drinks with my attorney son once I get home in the spring.

I have three books on photography and the law, but they're all back in Colorado Springs. Here's a brief excerpt from attorney and photographer Bert Krages's one-page PDF titled "The Photographer's Right":

"law enforcement officers may object to photography but most understand that people have the right to take photographs and do not interfere with photographers. They do have the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities or endanger safety. However, they do not have the legal right to prohibit you from taking photographs from other locations. They Have Limited Rights to Bother, Question, or Detain You.

Although anyone has the right to approach a person in a public place and ask questions, persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states. . ."

This broadly is the same as the UK and is commonsense imo . I have a small booklet published by a camera magazine that is titled ... Know your Rights. I will in future carry it with me and if challenged then I can produce it and it might help avoid any hassle.

You have to find a camera that you're comfortable with using and that can be anything from a point and shoot compact camera to a medium format. There is no perfect camera so ignore the hype especially from the Leica camp unless you have very deep pockets. While they make fantastic cameras and lenses it won't make you a better street photographer.